In light of the recent Colombo bust, my observations.

[Angelo Santino]

I see alot of talk about this being the end of the Colombos. It would be if this were purely a criminal organization. I know that sounds insane, the mafia revolves around crime from an outside perspective. Yes and no.

Let's compare any Mafia Family to another group- the cartels or even a black drug gang. With the latter they are joined together purely for one unified criminal endeavor- drugs. To run a drug gang you need leadership, lieutenants, enforcers, crew leaders, sellers, runners, lookouts all the way down the line, because the business is drug distribution. Each person has a specific job to play. A mafia family doesn't work that way. It's not primarily focused on anything, there's never been a drug Family, a casino Family, a Union family and so forth. It is not a criminal organization so much as it is an organization of people who resort to crime. In a crew person A could be involved in drugs, person B could be involved in Unions, person C dould run restaurants and have no criminal acumen but would kill a competitor if they had to. They don't have specific roles for hitmen or moneymen and those that do, like Roy DeMeo act informally. He was, in the end, a formal soldier. Not official Gambino Family Hitsquad leader.

There is no capo who has ever called in a soldier and scolded him for not meeting his criminal quota. There are no crews that are designated to specialize in a certain racket that requires a leader and underlings. A Mafia family is more like this forum than it is a criminal organization, I'll explain. I'm a mod, my name is in green, on the pecking order I'm higher than the names in blue. I hold administrative duties with the power to ban people and if I give a decree it comes with weight. But I don't control what the names in blue do, what they post or what they focus on (outside from a few ground rules- not attacking others, no BS in the threads, no overt racism etc). I'm not about to start demanding that the posters here focus on Myer Lanksey. What you guys post about is your decision as long as you abide by the rules of the board. That's the Mafia. It's members commit crime but a capo is a representative of the members and their actions, not their crimes. They don't direct criminal activity unless a hit order comes down (the boss says a guy needs to be hit and they'd like this crew to handle it), they act as representatives of the members who commit criminal activity. And if a capo goes to prison and there's a vacancy, it doesn't disrupt anything. Solders are not in need of a leader to tell him how to coduct themselves. If a capo involved in the union thing goes down, the union activity is disrupted but there's alot more going on than unions and maybe a bookmaker with leadership skills fills the slot, the crew in question is likely diversified with each member acting as their own free agent doing legal, illegal whatever things. Mikey A becomes capo, he has the represent Mikey B, C, D, E and if Mikey B gets into a dispute with another group, he has to represent him. If Mikey E is a lunatic who is sporadic, Mikey A has to offer guidance as capo that yes, Mikey E is unreliable and not worth having around. Notice that specific crimes are not part of the discussion. That's what being amico nos comes with. You gain representation in this subculture we all follow that we know and regard as Mafia/La Cosa Nostra.

I feel this is lost, even to the most strident mafia researcher who can recite crimes and dates. It's a society of members who are willing to resort to crime more than it is a criminal society. Members don't wake up everyday thinking how to commit crimes purely for the sake of doing so, they wake up and go about their business and are willing to resort to illegal means if it will further benefit their economic interests. They don't consider themselves criminals because crime isn't their primary intention, it's a means to an end in what they are vested in. Hence why the term "soldier" is misleading because they aren't grunts awaiting command, they just don't hold any formal rank within the society.

Rather than regard a boss as a gang leader it's better to use the term representative because he represents those under him. He doesn't direct their criminal activities. He can say "let's try and focus on AC" or "no drug dealing allowed" but he's not pulling aside members and saying you do this, you do that. The mafia is an organic organization with a strong culture linked to Italian culture- social clubs, meeting compaesan, networking is all part of the noncriminal aspect. When DiLeonardo traveled to LA to meet with Milano, he was invited to meet with Frank Valenti in AZ. The meeting wasn't criminal, they weren't meeting to discuss how to do a specific crime, they were meeting as members of the society with a shared heritage- DiLeonardo is Bisacquinese and Valenti was Grottesi. They were both part of a society that is willing to resort to crime but with crime was not nor ever was the primary intention. Is what I am trying to articulate make sense?

Imagine if you had a relative who was part of a business, that business had a prerequisite which requires workers had to kill if the business warranted it. Imagine explaining that to someone, "My uncle is part of XYZed and he had to agree to kill someone if they asked but he hasn't had to." Regardless, you'd look at the relative differently... If I'm a member and I run a restaurant on Roebling and an outsider looks to open one as well and we're both competitors, doesn't it up my advantage that I'm part of the may-fia? Wouldn't it make my competitor kinda trend lightly? I'm not about to send people to kill him (most likely) but my reputation would likely make an average Joe think twice. That's the power of the mafia as reflected by its own members. It gives them an economical heads up. They aren't gangbangers looking to control a territory. That's not mafia.

Rant over. The Colombos will be fine, want to take out the Colombos arrest all of them with crimes that stick and even then...

[Chaps]

Nice job CC. You have just the right intellectual mind and historical knowledge for such an explanation. One question, and maybe I'm missing something by not reading in between the lines. What about those members that had solely legitimate businesses? Perry Criscitelli of the Bonanno's comes to mind. Were they brought into the family because of their business interests and welcomed the membership to further those interests?

[jimmy_beans8]

Imo. Yes

[jimmy_beans8]

Imo. Yes

[Pogo The Clown]

You can't seperate crime and LCN. It is what makes the Mafia the Mafia and not a social club or Italain heritage fraternal organization for men. One cannot become a member without committing some type of crime nor has there ever been a member who hasn't committed a crime. Crime is their whole purprise for existing. It is even right in their induction oath that a prerequisite for membership is a willingness to commit crime to advance the interest of the organization.


Still the Colombos aren't going anywhere anytime soon.


Pogo

[Ivan]

There is no capo who has ever called in a soldier and scolded him for not meeting his criminal quota.

Don't a lot of these guys have a "nut" they have to meet every week?

[B.]

Great discussion that fits my own view. Much more to say on this at a later time.

Speaking of the Colombos, Pennisi told an interesting story months ago that got overlooked and fits here.

He said in the 2010s Arrow Linen was involved in a location dispute with a rival linen business and because Arrow was with the Colombo family, they repped Arrow and won the sit down in Arrow's favor.

Pennisi didn't mention this but Arrow Linen is owned by elderly Colombo soldier John Magliocco, nephew of Joe Profaci and Joe Magliocco. John has never been in significant legal trouble that I know of and Arrow is a very successful company run now by his fully legitimate children. Doesn't change the fact that Arrow is owned by a legacy Colombo member and therefore have the support of the Colombo leadership.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was no "tribute" involved in the dispute and if there was it would be voluntary. When John Magliocco dies I will be curious what happens unless one of his relatives is made.

One cannot become a member without committing some type of crime nor has there ever been a member who hasn't committed a crime.

Neither of these is true, even in recent years. Just one modern example came from Gary Valenti's tapes where Asaro complained that Nana Bonventre had never committed crime and received his button because of who he is. Countless examples of this in the past and occasionally still in the present.

I would agree that by swearing an oath to commit murder they are all technically a potential criminal, as murder is the only crime the mafia consistently demands (when ordered). In terms of rackets though there are few if any demands, only guidelines and rules against certain activities.

[B.]

There is no capo who has ever called in a soldier and scolded him for not meeting his criminal quota.

Don't a lot of these guys have a "nut" they have to meet every week?

If a guy is involved in illegal activity they can ask for tribute but not all families/crews do that. The money a given member owes is based on the nature of what he is involved with. If he decides to get out of crime he is under no obligation to keep paying the same money.

A big aspect the public misses out on is that high-ranking members often invest in a given activity and they receive a profitable return on their investments that seems like "tribute" but isn't. They back card games and therefore receive a return on it, same with loan interest, etc.

They do receive tribute, especially at Christmas, but there is a tendency for the public to see every "envelope" as meeting a tribute quota which isn't necessarily true.

[Pogo The Clown]

One cannot become a member without committing some type of crime nor has there ever been a member who hasn't committed a crime.

Neither of these is true, even in recent years. Just one modern example came from Gary Valenti's tapes where Asaro complained that Nana Bonventre had never committed crime and received his button because of who he is. Countless examples of this in the past and occasionally still in the present.

I would agree that by swearing an oath to commit murder they are all technically a potential criminal, as murder is the only crime the mafia consistently demands (when ordered). In terms of rackets though there are few if any demands, only guidelines and rules against certain activities.

Not making ones living in the rackets is not the same as never committing a crime. A completely square and honest citizen would never fall into LCNs orbit to begin with. Nevermind be trusted enough to be inducted into the organization. Somewhere along the line they have committed some type of crime even if it just using their position in the legitsmite world to aid the organization and or covering up for the organization by keeping their knowledge of its criminal activities from LE. Like I said you can't even become a member without agreeing to kill for the organization. Anyone who has reached the point that they openly agree to kill someone has long ago passed the threshold of never having committed a crime in their life.


Pogo

[B.]

It's not accurate that every member has committed a crime and it's not just one or two exceptions. There have been many types of members but they all 100% enable and support the criminals, I would agree with that.

For the record I don't share views like Celeste Morello where the old Sicilian members were just legitimate businessmen who were turned into criminals through Americanization, but I know why she thinks that and it's not pure imagination, just how she interpreted the sources. She has a pro-mafia bias, but from my research the mafia has always included ruthless criminals alongside otherwise legitimate people, all of them being part of the same subculture that promotes their own dominance.

If we're talking about driving over the speed limit, then maybe you're right every member has broken the law.

[CabriniGreen]

. They aren't gangbangers looking to control a territory. That's not mafia.

Rant over. The Colombos will be fine, want to take out the Colombos arrest all of them with crimes that stick and even then...

I would say, when the mafia had the manpower, and the contacts, they sold more drugs than anyone. Ormento was Nicky Barnes first.


https://www.maredolce.com/2021/06/08/tr ... a-polonia/


Chris, you should read this article, then I'll revisit the thread, but if no one reads the article, theres no point.
You would be amazed at the level of " gangbangerish" activity IN Sicily of all places....

[TommyGambino]

Who said this is the end of the colombos?

[Ivan]

Who said this is the end of the colombos?

I don't see how anyone could think that... This was just a sweep of the administration on non-murder charges, nothing super devastating.

[Angelo Santino]

You can't seperate crime and LCN. It is what makes the Mafia the Mafia and not a social club or Italain heritage fraternal organization for men. One cannot become a member without committing some type of crime nor has there ever been a member who hasn't committed a crime. Crime is their whole purprise for existing. It is even right in their induction oath that a prerequisite for membership is a willingness to commit crime to advance the interest of the organization.


Still the Colombos aren't going anywhere anytime soon.


Pogo

Sorry but I respectfully disagree.

Other organizations purely centered around crime have come and gone and/or changed over time. The Mafia has been in this country since 1850 and its structure and culture remains mostly unchanged. Crime in 1850, 1870, 1900, 20, 40, now has changed but the Mafia has an unchanged subculture involving meeting, socializing, intermarrying and its structure has remained intact. With the exception of messagero or some families not having consiglieri there's never been any major deviation from the blueprint.

Listen, I'm not trying to "legitimize" the mafia, I'm simply making a point that the hierarchy is more of a bureaucracy followed by its members than it is a chain of command that directs criminal activity. There are examples of both, Paul Castellano telling members to get involved in unions or Mazzone telling members to retake Atlantic city but this is only one part of it.

Crime is not their primary purpose. That suggests they are antisocial sharks who wake up and have a desire to break the law. Some are, most are not. They see themselves as "above the law" (ie. a second government) and will break it to suit their needs. If I'm a member and I have a pizza place, I may show up every day at that place to work, report the numbers accurately and it may not be a front in the sense that crime is committed there. On paper, I'm legitimate. But then say a competitor opens up across the street and is hurting my business, it may compel me to extort or blow up the place. Why? Because he's hurting my income. Does this make sense? I'm not waking up with an urge to commit crime but I'm not above doing it if it furthers my economic interests.

Been awhile since you and me went heads up. I miss it and look forward to doing this again. Most times we agree but when we don't, that's when things get interesting. After the month I've had I feel honored to be in this position to debate with you. It's always from a place of respect and admiration. Salut.

[Angelo Santino]

Nice job CC. You have just the right intellectual mind and historical knowledge for such an explanation. One question, and maybe I'm missing something by not reading in between the lines. What about those members that had solely legitimate businesses? Perry Criscitelli of the Bonanno's comes to mind. Were they brought into the family because of their business interests and welcomed the membership to further those interests?

Depends on what we consider solely legitimate. Many goes go into legitimate businesses but do they conduct themselves legitimately or use their status to gain an edge?

In terms of why seemingly legit people get brought in could be to further those interests or could be related to bloodlines.